I think it is largely a matter of definition and distinction. Most people I meet who identify as anarchists are actually agorists. I think there is a place and time for anarchy, but it is not a method of governance in much the same way that democracy is not a suitable method of governance. As with so many things, the answer is not a dichotomy, but a gradient.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Agreed. Yet I often hear people throw around the term 'statist', but it doesn't form an argument by itself.

I don't have a problem with individuals voluntarily forming a state. If I respect their voluntary statehood, then that would be enough to make me a 'statist'. I.e. respect for voluntarism becomes statism.

Being practical, I think the idea of complete anarchy is interesting and deserving to be tested, but I can't assume that it will work before the code is run and evaluated, so to speak.

If we have a plethora of small jurisdictions competing for capital, entrepreneurs, skills and workers, that would be a perfectly fine voluntarist solution, even though it qualifies as 'statist'.

Yep, another way to describe this, I believe is autocratic communities. I believe that diverse community is the key. Peaceful cooperation through respect, even if that respect is brokered through mutually assured destruction.